|
I. Introduction介绍
基于雪山饭店为例，该报告是三个管理体系的审查，包括业务伙伴模式，集中的共享服务中心和人力资源管理责任下放给部门经理。在这份报告中，每个管理系统的驱动力，优势和潜在的后果进行了分析。在这种方式中，该报告可以作为管理制度的未来选择一个很好的参考。Based on the example of the Snow Mountain Hotel, this report is a review of three management systems, including the Business Partner Model, centralised shared service centre and devolution of HR responsibilities to the line managers. In this report, each management system is analyzed in terms of driving forces, advantages and potential consequences. In this way, this report can be used as a good reference for future selection of themanagement system.
II. Business Partner Model业务伙伴模式
业务合作伙伴模式定义为人力资源模型中，客户和供应商之间的长期战略关系是基于优秀的实践和可持续竞争优势的建立（Lendrum，1997）。而不是只集中在HR部门的日常工作，人力资源专业人士应该与业务领导和一线管理人员对整个组织共享的现状与未来目标合作（Ulrich，2013）。在商业合作伙伴模式，人力资源管理专家需要参与业务的各个方面，从生产到统计学处理所有销售预测和管理方式。为了实现这一目标，人力资源部门应尽力通过其招聘和培训新员工的组织创造附加价值，以及现有员工的分配和晋升。雪山饭店作为合作伙伴的业务模型的一个很好的例子的成功部署。The business partner model is defined as aHuman Resource model in which strategic long-term relationships between the customers and the suppliers are established based on excellent practice and sustainable competitive advantage(Lendrum, 1997). Instead of concentrating solely on the routine HR duties, the HR professionals are supposed to collaborate with business leaders and line managers onthepresent and future objectives shared by the whole organization(Ulrich, 2013).In the business partner model, HR specialists are required to be involved in every aspect of the business, from production statisticsall the way to sales projections and management. To achieve that, HR departments shall try their best to create additional values to the organization by overseeingthe recruitment and training of new employees, as wellasallocation andpromotionof current employees. The Snow Mountain Hotel serves as an excellent example ofsuccessful deployment of the Business Partner Model.
The business partner modelhasgained increasing popularity and been widely applied in business management. This can be explained by the internal and external drivers, which are of equal importance,of this model (Ulrich and Brockbank, 2009). As a typical internal driver, the cost efficiency,which is directly related to the profits, is one of the key driving forces. In the business partner model, a shared service center is established, thus reducing the HR administration cost for each organization. On the other hand, HR professionals are covering more duties than before, thus reducing the total amount of employees (especially the supervisors) needed.Previously, the line managers in the Snow Mountain Hotel may need one or more secretaries because they had to be involved in some routine HR matters such as application review and candidate interview. In the Business Partner Model, the majority of these matters are taken over by HR personnel. Another internal driver is the great potential of HR professionals that can only be fully exploited in the business partner model. Traditionally, the HR professionals were under-estimated and limited to routine duties only; few HR professionals were involved in the strategy planning and decision making of the organization. On the other hand, external drivers are playing a key role, too. One of the most important external factors is the drastically increasing competition in the business field, owing to the globalization and technological achievements. Therefore, there is a higher requirement in terms of efficiency and capability for the HR professionals.Nowadays, to remain competitive, organizations and companies shall have all departments, especially the HR department, to work closely with the management. The business partner model helps to relieve pressure of the management, as well as the system of incentives and punishment. In most cases, HR specialistsare capable of providing valuable suggestions on promotions and arrangement of employees as they know each employee from his/her job application interview they are supposed to possess the best recognition of all the employees in terms of advantages, drawbacks and potentials.
The business partner modelcan definitely enhance the competitive advantage of the organizations(Porter, 2008). The direct benefits of Business partnering include a greater competitive advantage brought by the co-operation and better opportunities of occupation,revenues and investment in the sector of application.
Although the business partner model is designed to positively impact the business on all levels over time, there are potential disadvantages of this model. Firstly, this model has a significantly higher requirement for the HR personnel; to have competent candidates, the company has to increase the salary of these positions, thus increasing the expense. Secondly, this scheme enables HR personnel supervision on all the other departments and may disrupt the dynamic balance between different departments. More importantly, this model may weaken the direct interaction between employees and the management as the management tend to make decisions based on the reports and suggestions provided by the HR department. This will definitely have a negative effect on the capability of the management and the morale of employees.
III. The Use of Centralized Sharing Service Center使用集中共享服务中心
By definition, the centralized sharing service center is a department that is responsible for the execution of all the specific operations shared by different divisions and departments of the same organization(Janssen and Joha, 2006).These operations include human resources, IT services, purchasing, accounting, etc.. As a spin-off of the corporate services in multi-unit organizations, the shared services center is established to share the burdens of the operational tasks in the organization so that the headquarter can focus on its role of leadership and governance.Indeed, the main objective of the centralized sharing service center is to allow each department/division to focus its limited resources on activities that can maximize the division’s output. In the case of the Snow Mountain Hotel, a centralised team in the USA handled payroll and matters relating to recruitment, compensation and benefits so that the local departments can focus on operational tasks. Additionally, it is claimed that the establishment of a centralized sharing service center can reduce the overall operational cost of the whole organization(Cooke, 2006).
The increasing deployment of the centralized sharing service center all over the world is due to a variety of reasons, which can be categorized into internal and external driving forces. Similar with the driving force of the business partner model, one of the key internal drivers for centralized sharing service center is the cost-effectiveness. According to statistics, the operational cost related to the tasks covered by the centralized sharing service center can be reduced by 50% in average and 70% in extreme cases. This can be explained by the expensive facilities and time-consuming trainingsrequired for execution of the operational tasks. In a decentralized service system, each division/department has to purchase its own equipment and train some employees for these services; in a centralized sharing service system, the overall cost is increased but the average cost for each division/department is lowered.In the case of theSnow Mountain Hotel, the resort is limited in total area, which means any increase in the accommodationand office area leads to decrease in the accommodation area for tourists. Another internal driving force isthe improved quality of services in virtue of the experienced specialists in the centralized system. In the case of theSnow Mountain Hotel, the centralized center located in urban areas of the United States can hire better professionals as they don’t have to be re-located to the resort. The external driving force is that the parent organization would like to have a precise control over operation of the hotel and the same system can be applied to other subsidiaries without significant challenges.
As is known, every coin has two sides. The concept of centralized sharing service center has several potential benefits and drawbacks. The key benefits of this concept are the reduced cost and improved service quality. For instance, the in-house HR department located in the resort area can be extremely expensive. On one hand, higher salary shall be paid to the HR employees for them for the re-location; on the other hand, accommodation and office have to be provided to the HR personnel at the cost of decreased accommodation for tourists. With a centralized sharing service center, the cost can be significantly reduced. Nevertheless, the drawbacks and limitations are also obvious. Firstly, the centralized center can never cover all aspects of HR related matters and the line managers have to cover part of the HR matters, thus decreasing their working effectiveness and efficiency. Indeed, the general manager of the SNOW Hotel Group insists that an in-house HR team in the resort is necessary. Then, the response from the centralized center may be delayed. Even with the advanced communication technologies available nowadays, immediate response to every incident from the centralized system is by no means possible. Finally, the centralized sharing service center may not fully understand the specific circumstances that local subsidiaries are facing. Therefore, disagreement between the subsidiary management and the centralized center may be resulted. #p#分页标题#e#
IV. Devolution of HR Responsibilities to the Line Managers人力资源的职责，部门经理的权力下放
As the establishment of a centralized sharing service center is not a perfect solution to current management issues, some experts advocate the other way around, namely devolution of HR responsibilities to the line managers. In this theory, some duties typically performed by human resources personnelare passed to line managers to cut the operational cost without any significant effects on the operation of the organization/company(Perry and Kulik, 2008).It is claimed that devolution of some Human Resource Management (HRM) duties to line managers has a positive effect on the employee commitment and ultimately the overall business performance of the organization(Watson et al.).
The potential benefits of this theory include reduced cost andimproved employee commitment. Firstly, the duty devolution allows the management to reduce the size of HR department, thus lowering the overall expenditure on employee salary. Actually, HR professionals are usually highly paid due to their important and irreplaceable role. On the other hand, it is believed that line managers are playing a key role in promoting ‘an integrative culture of employee commitment’(Whittaker and Marchington, 2003) and securing employee commitment to quality and productivity(Renwick, 2003). It has been proved by a recent CIPD report that line managers involvement has a positive influence on the overall organisational performance(Hutchinson and Purcell, 2003).Nevertheless, there are also drawbacks and limitations in this theory. Firstly, the outcome of this system is unpredictable as it is highly dependent on the ability and willingness of line managers to carry out HR tasks properly. The absence of designated HRspecialists may have negative effects on strategic integration,commitment and quality of the organization. Secondly, line managers have to spend a considerable amount of time and efforts on HR matters in their respective departments, resulting in less time and efforts for their own duties. Actually, line managers are complaining that the extra HR matters can take up to 40% of their working time and they have to work for over-time to accomplish other tasks. Last but not least, owing to their limited knowledge of employment laws, the devolution of HR responsibilities to line managers may lead to some legal issues or even lawsuits, which could be extremely costly and have a negative effect on the image of the organization/company.
In order toensure HR and line managers are fully engaged, a variety of practical issues need to be addressed before theimplementation of this system. Firstly, trainings shall be provided to the line managers to get them familiar with basic knowledge, especially about the local employment laws. This is absolutely necessary as it avoids undesired incidents, although it’s costly and time-consuming. Secondly, effective communication between HR personnel and the line managers should be guaranteed. For the devolution of responsibilities to line managers,there must be a clear definition of the responsibilities to be devolved; any misunderstanding on that can lead to some duties not covered by either party, thus some unnecessary disorders. Finally, an effective system to review the performance of line managers in this system must be established to evaluate and improve the devolution system.
V. Conclusion总结
In summary, we have evaluated three different management systems in terms of driving forces, advantages and drawbacks, with the Snow Mountain Hotel as an example. It has been found that each system has its unique advantages and limitations. Therefore, selection of management system should be case-by-case, namely based on the actual circumstances. This report serves as a review of the three management systems to which future selection can refer.
References文献
COOKE, F. L. 2006. Modeling an HR shared services center: Experience of an MNC in the United Kingdom. Human Resource Management, 45, 211-227.
HUTCHINSON, S. & PURCELL, J. 2003. Bringing policies to life: the vital role of front line managers in people management.
JANSSEN, M. & JOHA, A. 2006. Motives for establishing shared service centers in public administrations. International journal of information management, 26, 102-115.
LENDRUM, T. 1997. The strategic partnering handbook, a practice guide for managers. McGraw-Hill, Nook Company Australia.
PERRY, E. L. & KULIK, C. T. 2008. The devolution of HR to the line: Implications for perceptions of people management effectiveness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 262-273.
PORTER, M. E. 2008. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance, Simon and Schuster.
RENWICK, D. 2003. Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view. Employee Relations, 25, 262-280.
ULRICH, D. 2013. Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results, Harvard Business Press.
ULRICH, D. & BROCKBANK, W. 2009. The HR business-partner model: Past learnings and future challenges. People & Strategy, 32, 5-7.
WATSON, S., CAMPUS, C. & MAXWELL, G. A. HR Business partnership-Perspectives on Devolving HRM and HRd Roles to Line Managers.
WHITTAKER, S. & MARCHINGTON, M. 2003. Devolving HR responsibility to the line: threat, opportunity or partnership? Employee Relations, 25, 245-261.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
